Need some advice guys. Looking to buy a really nice scope that will bounce between a few guns periodically. Mostly to shoot groups and longer range targets, but will also be used for hunting over fields 100-300 yards usually. Plus that can be used if I do go on a trip with long distance shoots possible. Considering the nighforce benchrest 8-32 model, and the Swarovski z5 5-25 model. Opinions/advice....

That is a lot of scope to be used for hunting IMO. I think you would be better served with the 3.5-18x Swaro if you want to go with the Z5. The Nightforce I would go with the 3-15x.

You really should set your gun up for what you will use it most for, not for what you might use it for. Meaning if most of your shooting is going to only be out to 300 yards for hunting, then why have a huge, heavy, telescope that has terrible FOV on your gun . Lots of people shoot 600 to 1000 yards with just 10x scopes. So 15x or 18x would work great for you IMO. Plus it still gives you the nice lower end for hunting.

Lifetime warranty and excellent customer service don't mean a thing when your gun fails during a zombie attack.

OK, I just don't know if I could shoot 600-1000 yards with those powers. Unless there is some major difference between those and say a nikon and or Leupold as far as seeing that far to shoot. Have never shot that far but plan to start in near future. Also, this is the only over $1000.00scope I will ever buy most likely. So I figured I get those ranges. The low end 8x power on the NF would be limiting for up close though. The 5x on the Swaro don't seem bad though, as most of the time I usually never go under that on my Nikons and leupolds while hunting.

Problem with high magnification is you run into problems like mirage, shake, low exit pupil (which leads to a very small eye box) you see all the flaws in the glass more so, small FOV.

I had an IOR 3-18x scope and I shot it quite a bit at 600 to 1000 yards. 95% of the time I used it on 12 or below because of those problems. I also had a 6-24x IOR on a 300 WSM, same thing, I never used it over about 14x. Just to many issues.

Granted some do like more, so there is a lot of personal preference involved. Again just my opinion, but if it is going to be used for hunting then the lower low end will offer you a lot more than the higher high end.

Lifetime warranty and excellent customer service don't mean a thing when your gun fails during a zombie attack.

I own the 3-18x Swaro with BDX,a great light weight with fantastic glass.My SWFA SS10X HD has very good glass & is almost indestructable.10X is the one I would use if I had to constantly switch between rifles.

Another for you to take a look at is the Bushnell Elite 2-16 with target turrets,the glass is not as good but you won't give up much for all your needs!

I was easily making hits at 750 on 12x16 plates with a 10X Kahles, and while I ran out of time to move over to 1K I did look at the same size plates and felt I would have no problem connecting provided I had the elevation needed (I don't)

I can shoot .5 at 300 with the same scope, so, unless you are wanting to shoot into the same hole at 500 yards, I would say 15 is plenty on the top end

Need some advice guys. Looking to buy a really nice scope that will bounce between a few guns periodically. Mostly to shoot groups and longer range targets, but will also be used for hunting over fields 100-300 yards usually. Plus that can be used if I do go on a trip with long distance shoots possible. Considering the nighforce benchrest 8-32 model, and the Swarovski z5 5-25 model. Opinions/advice....

Just the other day I compared a Swarovski Z5 5-25X52 and a NightForce NP-R2 12-42X56.I made a testing chart with five lines on an 8 1/2X11 copy sheet.The lines are 5/16” wide with 5/16” spaces between the lines.The test idea was to see at what range I could no longer see lines, but a grey rectangle. And then turn the magnification up to see what magnification was needed to see the lines.

Here are the yardages and magnification results:

521 yards – Swaro: 16 ½X NightForce: 12X

572 yards – Swaro: 17 ½X Night: 12 ¼X

690 – Swaro: 24X Night: 18X

706 – Swaro: 24X Night: 18X

724 – Swaro: 25X Night: 20X

The NightForce displayed the detail for me with much less adjusting required than the Swarovski. It was also much better in low light by a bunch.

Shooter31, if you don't mind 5X on the low end, that's fine but that's about as high as I'd consider going for shooting under 300 yards. Regardless, try to get the best combination of glass and magnification that you can afford. Especially at higher magnifications, good or great glass makes a big difference. NF doesn't have a reputation for great glass and that's never been a concern to me because the one I own only goes to 10X. But everything else about that scope is perfect (well, after I spent the $320 to have zero-stop and mil turrets added). You can rarely blame a bad shot on their scopes.

My scope with great glass - a Premier 3-15X - will show .308 bullet holes @ 300 yards under light to medium mirage. My crap spotting scope @ 36X will not under those same conditions. When parallax is dialed in on the scope it just seems to cut through the boil. I see it, but am not distracted by it, and can in fact, use it to judge wind. So if you're going to go really high on magnification, be prepared to spend some money or otherwise to rarely take advantage of the high end because it will be too hard on the eyes.

You could stick to the 3-5 range on the low end and 12-18 on the high end and there are more scopes at reasonable prices that will work just fine.

Thanks guys, this is getting interesting. So far I am gathering that nightforce is a great scope, that does it's job well, but in the price range does not have as good as glass as some others. Swaro does have great glass and it's reputation.

So for a no tech scope guy like me, where do I stand as far as a scope for being able to see paper targets at atleast 600 yards, and still hunt with at all shooting hours, and taking in the exit pupil numbers at higher powers.

Basically, I want 1 really high quality scope ($1000.00-1500.00 range) that is great for hunting in low light, durable, can target shoot long range with, and won't hinder me in the higher power ranges.

I was in the same boat as you not too long ago. I was trying to make a single purpose scope/rifle dual purpose. What you are going to end up with is something that kinda works for both but it will not be great for both. My advice, separate your hunting from your target shooting.

It costs a little more up front, but its worth it. I now have a great set-up for hunting and a great setup for target. Instead of a dual purpose rig with disadvantages depending on its use.

Suppose you take this same rifle hunting in tight cover situations, where a long shot might be 50 yards if you're lucky to get a break in the foliage. Trust me, you will then appreciate having no more than about 5X max on the low end. Ditto if you have to take a quick shot. In those situations, having plenty of FOV so you can find the animal in the scope is very helpful. Hunters frequently make the mistake of over-scoping their rifles because they envision some day needing to shoot a big game animal at super long range. They then end up with scopes that aren't well suited for the vast majority of shot opportunities they will actually face in "real world" hunting. The reality is, except in very rare cases, you're seldom ever presented with a shot opportunity further than 400 yards or so where it's impossible to get closer. I would much rather sacrifice some magnification on the high end and wish for a few more "Xs" maybe 5% of the time than wish for more FOV and better low light performance and optical clarity 95% of the time.

Ted

Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.

OK, so how about for a target scope. Shooting to 600 yards and maybe some day to 1000, is my glass quality going to be as important then as it is for hunting? What would be some suggestions for that scenario? I just can't afford 2 scopes much over $1000.00 so I'm going to have to pick which is more important for the higher priced scope. I know I can get by with sub 1000.00, but I want 1 really nice scope.

When my son-in-law first saw my NightForce we were at the range. The temp was 104 degrees. I ranged some rocks 650 yards away and asked him to take a look. He turned the magnification up to 42X and declared, "If a squirrel was sitting on the rock I could tell if it was a male or female."

Recently I took this NightForce, a Swarovski Z5 5-25X52 and a Bushnell 6500 to a gunsmith friend.

After comaring them for several minutes, he stated about the NightForce, "This is the finest scope I have ever handled."

I noticed the field of view is slightly larger in the Swarovski on 5X than the Bushnell on 4 1/2X. I don't have any trouble getting on troting deer at 25 yards with that Bushnell. It comes with practice. (If I was a better hunter maybe I would see them before they jump up.)

If you want glass quality, I would go with the Swaro. I also agree with the guys that you are better off giving up high end magnification for more low end. I have shot 600 to 1000 yards with 9x scopes before and only a few times would I say I wished I had more top end. But with hunting, especially in thick brush or trees I was glad I had 3 or 4x on the low end and would have liked a 2x.

I have one 4-16x scope. All the rest are 12x or less, and no matter which scope I am using, it is rare that the power is ever turned up past 8 or 9x. Most of the time hunting, if a person needs more than that, there is a good chance they shouldn't be taking the shot. In fact most of the time when I am hunting the scope sits a 6x and never moves even for shots at 300 yards. If I go in the woods, the the scope get turned to the lowest mag. Rarely do I use the high end mags unless I am out target shooting.

To be prepared for War is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.

I guess its all about personal preference. As far as magnification for target shooting, with the 8-32 Nightforce, at least you have the option to to dial in as much maginifaction as you want. Look at the statistics for target shooting competition champions. More wins have been made with the 8-32 or 12-42 Nightforce than any other scope. Some people prefer to target shoot with 10X at 1000 yards, but most of them don't win the competitions.

I have a 12-42X56 Nightforce Benchrest, so my opinion is probably bias. But, I absolutely love the damn thing....such a beautiful piece of hardware.

From someone who was just in your shoes, put your money into your target scope. You can get by with much less, hunting in the bush. I am from southern Canada and the type of forests I hunt the longest shot I can take is maybe 250 yards. For this I use 1X holograhics out to 100 yards and 3X flip magnifier for 100-250. Hunting you want low magnification for quick target acquisition and maximum eye relief. That is the beauty about holograhics, its designed for quick 2 eye target aquisition and has infinite eye relief.

The only problem with my setup is that the magnifier is designed to be on a low recoil AR. My 7mm mag has busted up quite a few of my friends faces from the recoil. Even after I warned them several times. ;)

To address your long range hunting needs, like heading out to the mountain ranges for some peak to peak hunting, the high end target scope you buy will be a great addition to that hunting trip.

Here are some practical things you should consider. The NF ranging and holdovers operate mostly at 22x not 32 or 42. You will need to decide which power you will be shooting long range if you are going to use hold over which depends on which reticle you select. Hold over with the NF (and generally any sfp scope) at that range will put your sight picture at the bottom. Its very easy to "lose the shot". the NF also have 1/8" clicks and it will take you forever to get back and forth with UKD targets past 700 yds besides running out of clicks if you decide to dial in.. (and if you use a 20 moa rail the holdovers won't work) . While the front AO on the NF is outstanding its way to slow for hunting (or even tactical) because it operates thru almost 360 degrees, as others may be as short as 30 degrees rotation. The scope workds well from 800 to 1500 yds.

SWaro does not make a good long range scope. If you are only shooting to 600 yds most of the time get the prettiest one.

sight picture loss and recoil are more problems with getting behind the rifle than just this scope, heres a 300 win mag.

I love little league baseball-- it keeps the kids out of the house Yogi Bera

Allright guys, I think I'm going to go with a scope more geared toward hunting. My question now is is the glass in a Swaro Z3 the same as the Z5? Also, is there another scope with as good as quality glass for low light hunting as either of these for the same price or less?

Glass is the same. The Z5 just has more zoom range (5:1) than the Z3 (3:1).

Zeiss Conquest, Bushnell Elite 4200 & 6500, and Trijicon Accupoint come close to the Swaro Z3 / Z5 series for quite a bit less money, but they aren't quite as good optically. You may find that the difference isn't worth the extra money, though. It's the old diminishing returns rule that applies to many products: once you get beyond the quality mid range optics, very small improvements in performance come at a hefty price increase.

I'm hearing great things about the Meopta Meopro scopes. Based on your desire for higher magnification, you might want to look at the 6-18X50. I've also heard good things about the Minox ZA5 4-20X50. I wasn't impressed with the W/E knobs and power ring when I saw the preproduction samples, but subsequent reviews of production models have praised these scopes.

If you can find a Kahles CL 4-12X52, the CL series scopes in general are usually priced quite a bit less than Swaro, since Kahles discontinued their 1" models, and they are fully equal to Swaro optically. This may be a bit less upper end magnification than what you are wanting, but it is a superb scope.

Ted

Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.

If you're going to be serious about target shooting get one with the high power. There's a reason why there are 25, 30, 35, 45 power target scopes out there. Sure you can target shoot @ 1000 yds with a 10x scope but depending on your target, you're not going to be able to define it as well.

For hunting, unless it's egg size targets @ 500/600 yards, a small amount of optics could probably be sacrafices. Also for hunting, especially when woods are near by, a large FOV is very beneficial.

I think I'm going to go with spending more money on a higher quality hunting scope with mid power, and buy a scope for paper punching later and spend a little less since glass quality isn't as big a deal since I wont be shooting at dawn and dusk.

One other question. Rings/bases, I was considering warne or Leupold 2pc. quick release set-up. Is either one better and/or good enough for accurate shooting? Figured I would take my best scope and by able to move it to other rifles for working up loads, so I was gonna go with the same brand base/rings. Just thinking the tolerances may be a little better matched between the same brand, or is a warne ring gonna fit the same on a leupold base as a leupold ring would and vice versa?

You don't have to use the same brand rings as bases if you are using the "turn-in" style (old "Redfield" design) dovetail rings that are common between several manufacturers. There is no tolerance issue because the specs are standardized and also because it's an interference fit between ring and base, where the dovetail on the rings actually deflects when cammed into the base to provide the locking force. You can mate, say, Burris rings on Leupold bases and vice-versa with no problems whatsoever.

Everyone has their individual preferences. There are certain rings I don't personally like such as the Tikka, Sako Optilock, Millet, Weaver swing clamp style, etc. As a class, the only other styles of rings I absolutely would not use are the turn in dovetail style that use the windage screws on the rear ring / base connection, as I've seen those fail to stay put. I do like the "dual dovetail" designs from Leupold and Burris, though, as the dovetail connection is very strong; it's the rear windage screw part that's weak.

Other than a few exceptions, most quality rings will do the job just fine. Leupold and Warne QD rings work just fine. If I were getting QD rings, I would probably get the Talley versions myself. I just think they look better and I like the dual recoil shoulders used on their bases. They are totally machined, so they are more sleek and streamlined than the Warne design. The only issues I've seen with Talley is they've had some inconsistencies in their finish, but Talley will replace if you encounter that.

Ted

Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum